Describing Homosexuality
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
my memory started jumping around
There are horrible people who, instead of solving a problem, tangle it up and make it harder to solve for anyone who wants to deal with it. Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Hmm. I am reminded of the crock you just mentioned. But forget Bells for a moment: whether or not Bells is moderating, you should adhere to your unflapping principle of honesty and the avoidance of false witness. You certainly must do so. So again: what is the next step? Assume it's completely genetic. What then? I know Bells well and assure you that Bells will take no punitive action against you.
can you PLEASE offer me a line of false witnessing, that is not something tat common sense can address? ie... that most (procreating) all life (animal/critters) came from opposite sexual relations; about 99.999999% of all sexually orientated life.
can you show me where this is even remotely incorrect?
otherwise, most if not all folks biased to homosexuality as being normal, are the most bigotted hypocrits this earth ever knew.
this subject is the single greatest subject that i will come across the most horrid of moderation (ie... see that masked idiot and how much garbage he can post and not a person on the site, says a damn thing)
like 'good and bad' to comprehending life; just share the truth of the matter and let the people LIVE.
i don't condemn, personally, if folks like sword fighting and bumping donuts
i am against the 'teaching' that it is normal and allowing the corrupt ideology to continue......
so if the few hate me to assist just ONE, then i am doing what i find good (supporting life to continue)
then perhaps tell the bell, to tone down
my intent is for the morrow and i don't care what anyone thinks of me
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
we already know what religion you will be because of your parents thus we can start the eugenics by simply controlling them prior to allowing them to breed.
thus negating your desire to perform tests on unborn children.
or did i miss something and you are not using a religious moral paradigm to define sexual orientation ?
Well, I've no idea who the "masked idiot" is that you mean - Tiassa doesn't even wear a mask so far as I know. But your points here intrigue me: you've clearly taken the position that homosexuality is wrong, and that its' proponents who describe it as abnormal are bigots, and hypocritical. You are also against teaching that it is normal. But what do you mean by this? Teaching that it is acceptable? That people who are homosexual should be accepted? Is that the case now? Please elaborate.
i would never
religions do not have the capacity to define life
how could they convey the proper foundation and it be true?
But your lies (i.e. false witnessing) have ALREADY been pointed out.
Apart from the actual figure (good guess though) the premise that we result from relationships between opposite sexes is, and never has been, in dispute.
So why does it matter if some people don't have a relationship with the opposite sex?
Unless you consider it a duty that EVERYONE should have children (which you still haven't answered) then it matters not who one sleeps with.
wow..... i guess you are not reading
sorry charlie; my stand is teaching it is normal is wrong
people who like/love each other can do what they wish; it is their choice
but no one has a right to suggest same sex (physical intercourse) is normal and should be accepted as standard
when to focus on the selfish enjoyment rather than the 'good of life' is what i claim as foul.
i liken it to the 'invisible hand' in which business has no needs of virtue (so the entity of the business (itself) is the focus of choice over the good of the people
that life procreates to live (ie...if the parents of gays were in the same ideology of the gay folks (self and fun first) most of them gay folks would not be here) So for them few to just shut down the reality that life continues by procreation, then them few are literally affecting the light of their whole lineage of life that they represent. (a direct dishonor of their mother and father)
now i never said, that all people must procreate; but the knowledge and awareness should be understood and allowed to be comprehended before making choices.
i just believe the new, the next generations deserve the chance at reality before being brainwashed by the selfishness of many of the existence paradigms of mankind
the bigots are the few who believe the majority must change for them
kind of like hitler or the people of israel believing they have a right to palestine
i accept any, homo, bi or even the beastiality and dominators; but i do not accept people who misrepresent for their own cause (as bigots)
and the reason it is so deep, is few hold the others accountable
ie.... the Dywyddyr fool (that has Bell all wound up with his crap) is a perfect example; as his bigotry, deceit and complete irresponsibility is all over this forum, these threads, and yet not a one will hold that idiot accountable.
i think the reality that "female to female" same sex in nature is PRACTICALLY non-existent............... was a kicker that has the BELL all bent.
everyone can thank OLI for that, as like the genetics frame of observing and using the MRI as Michael pointed out: offered another what of shutting down the ignorance.
If they cannot identify BEFORE birth; then the ideology of it being identified biologically is 'crap ' (of course unless a hemorphadite; which is a fraction of the global population)
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
is that a question or is it a rhetorical question ?
i can answer that but your question does not answer my question aside from suggesting your keen to divert from a solid statement of belief.
it is difficult not to put words in your mouth on this one as you propose such an open ended suggestion.
you see by your nature of your statement life is defined as a state of homosexuality which you invalidate consideration of by way of religion.
however i'm not sure that is what you actually meant to do ... ?
if people observe religious material for they believe it is 'good' for their 'life'
then unless 'life' itself is definable; then much of the ideology will be off
(nothing rhetorical about it; you need to comprehend WHY people even observe any religion)
i do not chose morals based on a belief (religion)
is that clear
never put words in my mouth and worry about your own words; best bet be responsible for YOUR actions
and every interpretation of what you just wrote is all bull
agains, all bull
sounds to me like you trying to pigeon hole me into some religious nut holding a book and suggesting the answers are within
sorry charlie;
i observe mother nature and allow her to share the rules
all any of us can do is remain honest enough when describing what is experienced/observed in mom's house
Except that it IS normal.
Crap.
So sex for purposes other procreation is wrong?
Once more you're getting away from the point.
What does it matter that some people have sex without procreating?
So if you can have sex without the need to procreate what does it matter who you have sex with?
You mean like people who make up their own (false) statistics?
Actually it's YOU that's got Bells wound up.
On the contrary: the bigoted deceitful, irresponsible idiot IS being held accountable.
Bells has already given you a warning.
What's it got to do with Oli?
Or is this another lie from you?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Please provide a single instance when someone on this forum has suggested that homosexuality should be accepted as standard. Hell, give us an instance from the real world where anyone has seriously made such a claim.
Repeatedly you have been told that the homosexually oriented proportion of humans and many animal species runs around 10%. That is not 'standard'.
It is clear that you reject, with no justification other than a love of ignorance, that homosexuality is common in animals. You use that flawed rejection to justify your declaration of its rarity in humans. Why are you deliberately blinding yourself?
A consequence of this argument is that married couples should only engage in sex when they are seeking to procreate. Is this your position?
Are you still maintaining, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, that sex only fulfills the single function of procreation? How did you arrive at this distorted view of reality? Have you had no education in biology?
There is no choice involved in being homosexual.
True. It is a pity you are the one who is unaware of reality.
I really think you should get a dictionary and check out the meaning of bigot. It is difficult to see how it is appicable in this context.
Moreover, who is demanding - amongst the gay community - that homosexuality should become the norm? No one that I know of. the only change they are asking for is that they be treated with tolerance and perhaps a little respect as fellow humans. Is that the change you are objecting to?
Castigating someone who repudiates your extremist views with thoughtful arguments only makes you look more foolish than you already do.
The small remaining portion of your post was even more incoherent than normal, so I shall leave it untouched.
Crap.
never said that
(bells; moderate these types of trolling comments; this is where i lose all respect for authority; i expect equality)
but when a child is first learning; tell me, how many teach their kids about the fun in their first few questions?
i believe it best to share the truth; 'them doggies are stuck because they are trying to make puppies'
for the procreation of life
everyone knows a wee bit later they (the child) will choose their partner but at least when they were growing up, they have a chance at the truth first
hey masked man; you are on my thread
the point is; that sex is biologically for procreation (fact)
it don't
do you mean:
ie... that most (procreating) all life (animal/critters) came from opposite sexual relations; about 99.999999% of all sexually orientated life.
in which you said
Apart from the actual figure (good guess though) the premise that we result from relationships between opposite sexes is, and never has been, in dispute.
that premise is what i am talking about; sex (biologically) is for proceation
DIFFERENCES from that are not the NORM but an option
truth will harm most when the subject is one they are passionate about and find their own errors.
I am sorry for that but it is not my fault; i only care that our next generations have the chance 'we all' did not have; a chance at the truth
and it WILL affect EVERY branch of knowledge ON THE GLOBE!
Where you come in oh masked beast; is your contesting shares how the 'self' can and will fight against what harms their beliefs.
i don't care if it is the 2LoT, the religions or a subject as politically abused as this (H) subject............ many frame will be affected
not my fault (reality doesn't lean on a creator; it exists and 'we the people' are who have been trying to define it throughout history) (notice the thread title; i am one of you, trying to define, too)
shut up
it was Oli that opened my eyes
not that he/she said or posted the rendition; but i learned from within our argument, a bridge was seen and built
meaning; that idea is something i never observed before. It was written and is now is all over the globe.
half of what i write on this site is a first
again, i am learning how to articulate what has been learned;
thank you very much!
wanted to keep this so you cannot change anything
and anyone who reads the thread can see how 'assuming' you are
the word was NORMAL (not standard)
it aint rare in humans because humans have choice.
people can tell other people it is normal and guess what, it seems with words, evangelicals can create more believers tooo
so i observe the nature of the issue to allow 'describing' that any can observe for themselves
in NATURE when observing the 'premise' of the instinctive PURPOSE of biological copulation; then it is easy to see WHAT IS NORMAL and what is not.
ie.... without TV, i do not believe i have ever seen a same sex relation in nature; ever! How about you? How many in comparison to the norm? Perhaps a ratio (something each can apply 'their own' experiences too)
well, i do think out back some of the male doves use the dominance position upon the lessor males but i don't think intercourse is happening just the pounding on the back of the head to gain the submissive posture of the weak
That's ok, Chuckles. You don't read your own arguments even: why would you mention that it's rare in the animal kingdom except to argue obliquely that it is "unnatural" and, thereby, wrong.
Define and contrast enjoyment with the good of life. How are homosexuals selfishly enjoying themselves? How does it harm you?
Look, there's lots I blame Oli for, and with good reason. His terrible fashion in ponytails, for example. But we can't run around viciously beating on Oli because you don't understand what you're on about.
I suppose we could carry on abusing Oli for the normal reasons, of course. His miserable skills at tank identification, possibly. :shrug:
So if it's sex for pleasure (or love) with no intention of children it doesn't matter.
You have no idea what truth is, you'd rather stick to your delusion and bigotry.
Your thread?
You have an exclusive license?
Except that (especially in humans) the vast majority of sex is NOT for procreation.
So that automatically negates your argument.
To what?
Possibly, but at least three quarters of what you write is incoherent nonsense.
when did i use the word 'rare'?
or 'unnatural'?
or 'thereby wrong'?
be responsible, show me!
the biological (genetics/instinct) of life; are to procreate (the word enjoyment, has nothing to do with the 'instinct of life')
they don't
it is people who claim the issue of same-sex as being NORMAL is what i consider wrong. (it is false witnessing and damages others by believing something that is not true, without having the change to understand the 'why')
Keep the word (normal) in mind, not all your utter crap............. quit assuming i am against the action itself..... and any who say so; are making and ass of himself, not me (that irresponsibility is why i contest the moderation; the above items you posted changing the words to your argument is why this BS continues; the consistancy of the whole debate gets ripped apart; because of the moderation not putting the screws to that kind of 'trolling')
the divide is on the claim of same-sex is normal; not gonna happen
the thread is supposed to be on "DESCRIBING" the issue and what is pure (EQUAL) to mankind/existence............. i could care less about the politics
when the kids grow up, they will have enough foundation to police the issue, themselves.
i am not beating up on OLI, i was suggesting that it was an argument we had and during it, i observed the question (in my own mind of thinking, then i wrote it);
how many female to female sexual relations occur in nature?
then look at that ratio (in your head) to the rest of the procreating species.
it kind of removes applicability of the female to female issue as being even remotely natural; no matter how you slice it.
that is what i was THANKING Oli on............. perhaps you should too.
basically it means, that i learned and have written a valid item, that any, whether of science, religions or from the selfish; that cannot be just denied
and then if so, them folks will stand out
who cares what you think of me
the words are not for me
Last edited: